Pearl Harbor Defense

On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 00:44:44 GMT, Guy Alcala
wrote:

Bill Kambic wrote:

(Eunometic) wrote in message

Impressive but is there even the slightest chance of hitting a ship
22 nm away?

The Type 93 or "Long Lance" had this 40,000 meter range. It was
however a large ship launched torpedo. The Type 95 was a reduced size
version of the "Long Lance" with a range of 12,000 meters designed for
submarine use. For giggles it is worth mentioning that the US Navy's
surface torpedoes managed about 5500 yards and their submarine
torpedoes about 1800 at this time.

This is, of course, wholly inaccurate.


Did you expect anything else ?
--
Felicitations, malefactors! I am endeavoring to misappropriate
the formulary for the preparation of affordable comestibles.
Who will join me?!

On 24 Sep 2004 15:36:34 GMT, ost (Chris Mark) wrote:

US goals since Wilson have been aimed at establishing a peaceful,
prosperous, democratic world, not at conquest and domination.

Good post, Chris. You almost convinced me!

I certainly agree that we have not been bent on conquest for a hundred
years. Domination is something else, however. If you weren't American,
you could even argue that the U.S. doesn't have to conquer because we
can dominate without conquest. (Indeed, lots of Americans argue that
way It's merely that the British/French/Belgian/Japanese model of
colonialism doesn't work any longer, if indeed it ever worked; we have
simply carried colonialism to a new level.

("Not that there's anything wrong with that," as Seinfeld would say.)

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! www.vivabush.org

Greg Hennessy wrote:

On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 00:44:44 GMT, Guy Alcala
wrote:

snip

This is, of course, wholly inaccurate.

Did you expect anything else ?

No, but every once in a while I feel an uncontrollable urge to inject some
reality into eunometic's cloistered world.

Guy

Peter Twydell wrote:

In article , Denyav
writes

snip

I see no purpose in my pursuing this topic with you.

You ARE the weakest link. Goodbye.

Took you long enough -- I was beginning to worry about you. Now killfile him like
the rest of us, and you'll only see his ravings when some other misguided soul
attempts to have a coherent argument with him.

Guy

In article , Guy Alcala
writes
Peter Twydell wrote:

In article , Denyav
writes

snip

I see no purpose in my pursuing this topic with you.

You ARE the weakest link. Goodbye.

Took you long enough -- I was beginning to worry about you. Now
killfile him like
the rest of us, and you'll only see his ravings when some other misguided soul
attempts to have a coherent argument with him.

Guy

There are two aspects to Denya and his ravings. One is that he's like
the mosquito you hear in the middle of the night and can't swat because
it's too elusive. The other is accepting the challenge of getting him to
justify himself. Not very successfully this time, unfortunately, but it
did confirm his irrationality. I only did it as a bit of light relief
after several hard days of pretty mind-boggling work when I needed to
relieve the stress. I promise I won't do it again. Well, not until the
next time anyway.

Over on the rec.sport.rugby.union newsgroup (devoted to one of the two
greatest sports on the planet), there is the RSRU Shield, a virtual
competition between national teams. The first holder was South Africa,
who were awarded the Shield after their World Cup win in 1995. The
Shield
changes hands every time the holder loses a Test match. Funnily enough,
South Africa holds it at the moment, having beaten Australia recently.
What's he on about, you ask. Well, it struck me that perhaps we could
award a similar trophy, to be awarded to the most outrageous loon
(lune?) who posts to the NG. Past holders would have included Venik,
Kurt Plummer and good ole John Tarver. The current holder would have to
be Denyav. The poster of a subsequent outrageously loony posting would
be awarded the trophy until the next one.
--
Peter

Ying tong iddle-i po!

Answer the question.


Less than 20% is the percentage of Anglo-Americans in US acc.to census figures

It's not interesting. The quote you provided was incomplete,
ungrammatical and incomprehensible. You obviously don't understand what
"Incomprehensible" means. Write it again exactly the way Rhodes said

I dont know if you like it but:

The quote was taken from John Flints book "Cecil Rhodes" published in 1976.
If you want to see full version of Rhodes' 1876 "Confession of Faith" you
better check out this book.
The Author has published the both versions of Rhodes' "will" ,one written by
himself in his own handwriting,other written by his clerk .
If you read the book we might get somewhere possibly.

No Sir,famous and for some dreaded CFR is nothing but the American Branch
or
loudspeaker of not so famous British roundtable group.

What?

Well,for more information I strongly recommend you to read Bill Clintons
mentor Carroll Quigley's book "The Anglo-American establisment"

Highly Secretive "Round Table Group" is behind of the current events in the
world,and our famous CFR is nothing but a loudspeaker for this secretive group.

What's wrong with that method? Most people had no education at all
before that. India had, and still has, so many languages that a common
tongue was needed to unify the country.

If I remember correctly the motto of the Empire was "Divide and Rule" not
"Unite and Rule"
So,the reason behind the introduction of English in colonies must be anything
BUT unification.

Existing social structures in India were repressive and exploitative.
Foe all its faults, the British ||Empire did improve the lot of the
people there.

Sounds like you are describing existing social structures in Britain at that
time.For example in India,Empire tried to terminate elite Brahmin caste all
methods.

Untrue.



Unfortunately true,Empire did everything imaginable to eliminate Brahmins,which
were Indias best educated elite and tried to replace them with a new
"nomenclature" educated in British founded schools and with "Gazzetta
Officers".

pretty hard to be friendly with the
peasants,even though polish elite was much closer to the Nazis "Superhuman"
picture than peasants.

Hardly a valid comparison.

Why? .Replace Brits with Germans and Brahmins with Polish then you have exactly
the same picture.

Soerry to disappoint you, but look at the number of people around the
world who received an education courtesy of Pax Britannica.

I wonder why there is not even one former British colony among G-7 or 8
countries whereas countries that were not fortunate enough to receive an
education courtesy of Pax Britannia,for example Japan,are among the most
developed,even though some former colonies were more developed than Japan
before they received education courtesy of Pax Brittannia?

I also wonder why many of worlds current hot spots,if not all, are the
countries that were fortunane enough to receive an education courtesy of Pax
Britannia?

Any explanations greatly appreciated.

What you called "education" is a brainwashing program designed de-root
colonized people and to make them the obedient servants of their colonial
masters.

Rubbish.
That was the way the Anglo empire (and others) work.

So the only reason people gave up their lives in their homeland was to
exercise their perversions overseas? Great reasoning, and untrue.
Victorian Britain was not at all puritan behind closed doors.

Surely it was not only reason but one of the reasons

..But you said that the Nazis were set up by tne future Allies in the
first place.

You possibly could not find anybody with less IQ than Nazis in Germany at that
time.


Then why didn't the war start in 1938 at the time of the Munich
Agreement?

This date was too early,even Idiots like Nazi management could see it.

And you do know what's happening? How?

If I lived in Anglo homeland ,I would not want to learn that.

What?

Why Sir David (David King) got involved in a nasty discussion with George W. ?,

What about could possibly our Prez without stellar IQ number discuss with
Britains top "official" scientists?.

Why the discussion turned nasty and Mr.Blair got a complain about that?

From: Cub Driver

Good post, Chris. You almost convinced me!

I'm glad I didn't! A few paragraphs in a usenet posting can't possibly be that
persuasive.

I certainly agree that we have not been bent on conquest for a hundred
years. Domination is something else, however. If you weren't American,
you could even argue that the U.S. doesn't have to conquer because we
can dominate without conquest. (Indeed, lots of Americans argue that
way It's merely that the British/French/Belgian/Japanese model of
colonialism doesn't work any longer, if indeed it ever worked; we have
simply carried colonialism to a new
level.

It's interesting that the Spanish-American War episode, which was so very close
to the classic European pattern of colonial imperialism stands as a singularity
in American power projection. It really wasn't what we were all about. That's
why it fell so easily victim to the scorn and satire of Bryan, Twain and Moody,
and was quickly viewed by Americans as an "ope'ra bouffe" imperial adventure
full of cheap jingoism that made the protagonists of the adventure--Hay,
Beveridge, Mahan and even TR--look like ninnies.
But the whole episode, with its noisy fireworks and the hoopla of Hearst
journalism, was marginal to the development of American power. The amasing of
American "imperial" power has scarcely followed the classic European pattern at
all. It has operated by the techniques of trade, investment and profitable
sales in foreign markets (you alluded to this in an earlier post and I was
hoping to draw you into a discussion of this interesting topic). It has not
been averse toward using "dollar diplomacy" to remove the obstructions in the
path of business profits (the Clinton Administration was very gung-ho on this),
to start convenient revolutions or quell inconvenient ones, and it has used
economic and technical aid as needed to secure its interests.
The S-A war did mark the coming of age of the US as a world power, and after
briefly veering into that European colonial rut, the country has stuck to an
amazingly consistant pattern. Since that time, and very especially since WW2,
which focused us wonderfully, the US has surprised both friends and foes by
its assertive diplomacy and an almost bristling eagerness to use American
military power. This policy reflects the basic American outlook or character,
unchanged from earliest days. It can be seen in every foreign engagement we
enter:
The attraction and recoil pattern, the fear of being hoodwinked by foreign
wiles, the chip-on-the-shoulder attitude, the demand for signs of affection
from the beneficiaries of American largess, the huffiness when these are not
forthcoming, the anxious pursuit of "national security," the belief that the
American angel must always, in the end, look homeward, followed by
introspection and the desire to withdraw from world affairs, only to be
followed by a reassertion of raw American power whenever the country encounters
a challenge from which it cannot escape. In the past that challenge was
German, Japanese, Soviet; today it is Islamic. We crush genuine threats with
brutal, unswayable determination--whatever it costs, however long it takes.
I don't believe this is at heart an "imperialistic" pattern: it is
self-defense writ large.


Chris Mark

"Peter Twydell" wrote in message
...
What's he on about, you ask. Well, it struck me that perhaps we could
award a similar trophy, to be awarded to the most outrageous loon
(lune?) who posts to the NG. Past holders would have included Venik,
Kurt Plummer and good ole John Tarver. The current holder would have to
be Denyav. The poster of a subsequent outrageously loony posting would
be awarded the trophy until the next one.

I don't know, Peter. I wouldn't ever have classified Kurt as
a loon to begin with: over enthused, yes, maddeningly fond
of acronyms, hell yes.
But a loon? No, heck it might even be useful for some R&D
staff to keep him around for the flow of ideas.

John Keeney wrote:

"Peter Twydell" wrote in message
...
What's he on about, you ask. Well, it struck me that perhaps we could
award a similar trophy, to be awarded to the most outrageous loon
(lune?) who posts to the NG. Past holders would have included Venik,
Kurt Plummer and good ole John Tarver. The current holder would have to
be Denyav. The poster of a subsequent outrageously loony posting would
be awarded the trophy until the next one.

I don't know, Peter. I wouldn't ever have classified Kurt as
a loon to begin with: over enthused, yes, maddeningly fond
of acronyms, hell yes.
But a loon? No, heck it might even be useful for some R&D
staff to keep him around for the flow of ideas.

While I agree with you re Kurt not being a loon, I think I'd have to disagree
on your R&D group suggestion. Think of the extra overhead involved -- they'd
either all have to be sent to the Defense Language Institute at Monterey to
learn how to understand Kurt's prose, or else develop a computer translation
program to decode all the acronyms and Plummerisms, and constantly update the
database as new ones are added. The last item by itself is a full-time job.
Granted, familiarity with Kurt's style does help with the decoding, but it's
just not worth the investment of time and energy for a small R&D shop.

Guy (who doesn't miss having to read and decipher plummerisms such as
"Dorito'd" or "Just so the Monkey can push the Pulsar button")

Peter Twydell wrote:

In article , Guy Alcala
writes
Peter Twydell wrote:

In article , Denyav
writes

snip

I see no purpose in my pursuing this topic with you.

You ARE the weakest link. Goodbye.

Took you long enough -- I was beginning to worry about you. Now
killfile him like
the rest of us, and you'll only see his ravings when some other misguided soul
attempts to have a coherent argument with him.

Guy

There are two aspects to Denya and his ravings. One is that he's like
the mosquito you hear in the middle of the night and can't swat because
it's too elusive. The other is accepting the challenge of getting him to
justify himself. Not very successfully this time, unfortunately, but it
did confirm his irrationality. I only did it as a bit of light relief
after several hard days of pretty mind-boggling work when I needed to
relieve the stress. I promise I won't do it again. Well, not until the
next time anyway.

Over on the rec.sport.rugby.union newsgroup (devoted to one of the two
greatest sports on the planet), there is the RSRU Shield, a virtual
competition between national teams. The first holder was South Africa,
who were awarded the Shield after their World Cup win in 1995. The
Shield
changes hands every time the holder loses a Test match. Funnily enough,
South Africa holds it at the moment, having beaten Australia recently.
What's he on about, you ask. Well, it struck me that perhaps we could
award a similar trophy, to be awarded to the most outrageous loon
(lune?) who posts to the NG. Past holders would have included Venik,
Kurt Plummer and good ole John Tarver. The current holder would have to
be Denyav. The poster of a subsequent outrageously loony posting would
be awarded the trophy until the next one.

Would seriously mis-wired types like ZZbunker qualify, or is that a separate
'Garble' trophy? And do we need sub-categories, like any bloated awards show? You
know, Monomaniac of the Year, with sub-categories for Deutschland uber
Alles/Luftwaffe'46, TWA 800, USS Liberty, Iran Airbus, Area 51 (often awarded
jointly with DuA/L '46), Best New Obsession (political election obsessions are
banned), Most Promising New Loon (no, on second thought, no loons are promising),
etc. And of course a lifetime achievement award, given to the Loon who has
demonstrated an extreme level of sustained lunacy over many years. The award has
to be named after a Loon who has left the Internet community seemingly forever for
whatever reason, so that it can be a memorial award. I have a nominee in mind, but
like George Washington being the near unanimous choice to be the first President of
the US, I imagine everyone here on r.a.m. would vote my candidate in by
acclamation.

Guy